|
|
Post by nyc718 on Oct 29, 2019 1:38:33 GMT
I told my therapist last week about the things my ex FA did to me. She said some considered those actions to be abusive. I was quite shocked as I had never thought of what he did qualified as abusive because as an AP, I minimalised the bad things he did. Why? Because APs do not have strong boundaries, we desperately are trying to bend over backwards so our partners would will love us. BUT, that “intermittent reinforcement” did come into play; he would do something bad and then if I pushed away, he’d be sweet and loving. So, every time he gave me a breadcrumb, it would be the most amazing thing ever. A Secure person would see abusive behaviour as it is and not tolerate it. Frankly, that is the right thing to do, because it can help FA/ DAs identify what they’re doing is hurting their partners. (Unfortunately, when I tried to explain I was hurt by something in the most civil way I could, my ex FA simply concluded I didn’t love him for who he was). The point is, if all APs stood their ground and acted like Secures would, maybe FA/ DAs can become aware sooner... Even if it means they will be single for a very, very long time. I totally understand what you are saying, but I feel like it's not always so black and white. Sometimes it is, but sometimes it just doesn't hit like that right away. I look back at some of the things my FA bf did, and at the time it didn't go off on my radar, but later on, only after some other behaviors was I able to put the pieces of the puzzle together. I try not to be hard on myself, because sometimes you just don't know right away about some things. Some things are super obvious, but some are subtle and just don't register right away. Please don't be hard on yourself either if you think you missed some signs, it can happen to anyone, even secures. Taking the steps to become secure is a road that most likely will have some invisible bombs sometimes that set you back, but it's ok, we are human. We just keep trying forward. |
|
|
|
Post by happyidiot on Oct 29, 2019 3:05:56 GMT
Teal is talking more in context of intimate romantic relationships, where someone's most important emotional needs supposedly get met. I would think your friend gets her main emotional needs met from either her primary attachment figure, or via a variety of freindships? I agree she would say something if the contact you have is unsatisfying. Not meeting someone's emotional needs is not automatically abuse, in fact it's not actually your partner's job to meet all your needs and many cases of intermittent reinforcement in "relationships" are in uncommitted situations which the person doing the intermittent reinforcement views as "casual" so it's really not their job to be meeting all your needs. Replace "friend" in my example with someone I have sex with. What if I just only want to see them every once in a while and I'm not looking for something more serious, in fact that's partly why I don't accept their invitations more frequently, because I'm trying not to lead them on. Am I abusing them, or am I just maybe a bad communicator and treating them like an adult capable of making their own decisions, assuming they would stop seeing me if they were not ok with the way things are? I have certainly experienced the pain of a hot and cold love interest, and the addiction that comes with intermittent reinforcement, I'm just not certain I'd always categorize it as "abuse" per se. I see abuse as a strong word and I feel like the meaning is getting a bit diluted lately which I don't think actually empowers people, if they just view all their exes or love interests who never committed or behaved inconsistently as having abused them. I've been in an objectively very abusive relationship before myself, so I'm not trying to victim blame here, but I think there is a difference between someone being inconsiderate, or being a scared avoidant who doesn't know what they want and being abusive. Teal Swan says " No matter what, if you are in an intermittent reinforcement relationship, you are in an abusive relationship," which I think is a stretch. For example I dated a DA guy who gave me intermittent reinforcement, which was pretty addictive and he was actually a pretty sweet guy and certainly not abusive. He just didn't want the same things as me. |
|
|
|
Post by serenity on Oct 29, 2019 4:11:35 GMT
I wouldn't take any of this as a personal criticism Happyidiot. As I understood it, the article referred to committed relationships that follow the pattern of a consistently loving honeymoon period, followed by distancing and intermittent reinforcement of what was once provided consistently.
Casual usually starts out casual with no future faking or flip flopping , and doesn't create the same dynamic.
Abuse is behaviour that causes psychological, physical, financial or spiritual harm, as I understand it. As adults we should know what that is , because kids can't explain it to parents. Its on us as adults to know the difference.
|
|
|
|
Post by persephone on Oct 29, 2019 6:07:54 GMT
Teal is talking more in context of intimate romantic relationships, where someone's most important emotional needs supposedly get met. I would think your friend gets her main emotional needs met from either her primary attachment figure, or via a variety of freindships? I agree she would say something if the contact you have is unsatisfying. Not meeting someone's emotional needs is not automatically abuse, in fact it's not actually your partner's job to meet all your needs and many cases of intermittent reinforcement in "relationships" are in uncommitted situations which the person doing the intermittent reinforcement views as "casual" so it's really not their job to be meeting all your needs. Replace "friend" in my example with someone I have sex with. What if I just only want to see them every once in a while and I'm not looking for something more serious, in fact that's partly why I don't accept their invitations more frequently, because I'm trying not to lead them on. Am I abusing them, or am I just maybe a bad communicator and treating them like an adult capable of making their own decisions, assuming they would stop seeing me if they were not ok with the way things are? I have certainly experienced the pain of a hot and cold love interest, and the addiction that comes with intermittent reinforcement, I'm just not certain I'd always categorize it as "abuse" per se. I see abuse as a strong word and I feel like the meaning is getting a bit diluted lately which I don't think actually empowers people, if they just view all their exes or love interests who never committed or behaved inconsistently as having abused them. I've been in an objectively very abusive relationship before myself, so I'm not trying to victim blame here, but I think there is a difference between someone being inconsiderate, or being a scared avoidant who doesn't know what they want and being abusive. Teal Swan says " No matter what, if you are in an intermittent reinforcement relationship, you are in an abusive relationship," which I think is a stretch. For example I dated a DA guy who gave me intermittent reinforcement, which was pretty addictive and he was actually a pretty sweet guy and certainly not abusive. He just didn't want the same things as me. I think serenity is saying your partner should need your most important needs, not all your needs. I think at the end of the day, we define what is abusive or not. There is no litmus test here. What I might shrug off “as a bit cold” can be interpreted as “woefully neglectful” by someone else. Similarly, what I think is “affectionate” might be considered as “smothering” by a different person. (As the others have pointed out, Teal Swan is a bit of a yahoo, her saying her opinion really mean just as much as what she says about remember your past life). |
|
|
|
Post by stu on Oct 29, 2019 6:52:05 GMT
Not meeting someone's emotional needs is not automatically abuse, in fact it's not actually your partner's job to meet all your needs and many cases of intermittent reinforcement in "relationships" are in uncommitted situations which the person doing the intermittent reinforcement views as "casual" so it's really not their job to be meeting all your needs. Replace "friend" in my example with someone I have sex with. What if I just only want to see them every once in a while and I'm not looking for something more serious, in fact that's partly why I don't accept their invitations more frequently, because I'm trying not to lead them on. Am I abusing them, or am I just maybe a bad communicator and treating them like an adult capable of making their own decisions, assuming they would stop seeing me if they were not ok with the way things are? I have certainly experienced the pain of a hot and cold love interest, and the addiction that comes with intermittent reinforcement, I'm just not certain I'd always categorize it as "abuse" per se. I see abuse as a strong word and I feel like the meaning is getting a bit diluted lately which I don't think actually empowers people, if they just view all their exes or love interests who never committed or behaved inconsistently as having abused them. I've been in an objectively very abusive relationship before myself, so I'm not trying to victim blame here, but I think there is a difference between someone being inconsiderate, or being a scared avoidant who doesn't know what they want and being abusive. Teal Swan says " No matter what, if you are in an intermittent reinforcement relationship, you are in an abusive relationship," which I think is a stretch. For example I dated a DA guy who gave me intermittent reinforcement, which was pretty addictive and he was actually a pretty sweet guy and certainly not abusive. He just didn't want the same things as me. I think serenity is saying your partner should need your most important needs, not all your needs. I think at the end of the day, we define what is abusive or not. There is no litmus test here. What I might shrug off “as a bit cold” can be interpreted as “woefully neglectful” by someone else. Similarly, what I think is “affectionate” might be considered as “smothering” by a different person. (As the others have pointed out, Teal Swan is a bit of a yahoo, her saying her opinion really mean just as much as what she says about remember your past life). Teal Swan definitely seems sketchy after looking her up. But I don't think abuse is something which is subjective. Perhaps sometimes there is the objective feeling of abuse by certain actions but it's important to be definitive about things like this because abuse is something that can be defamation of character towards another if not true. Also it's against the law and can cause people to lose their children and families. Maybe I think it's better to classify behaviors as healthy and unhealthy on a spectrum, can even call certain behaviors toxic, but abuse goes into a whole different realm with a whole different set of ramifications, damage , and serious long lasting effects and consequences. |
|
|
|
Post by anne12 on Oct 29, 2019 11:15:14 GMT
Look up the experiment with doves.
|
|
|
|
Post by stu on Oct 29, 2019 11:24:20 GMT
Look up the experiment with doves. I do know about the concept of interminnent reinforcement. I used to be a behavioral therapist and this is one of the core principles they teach in ABA therapy. It's the concept that also applies to slot machines, gambling, etc. People will keep going back to get that hit of a big win, or jack pot. |
|
|
|
Post by anne12 on Oct 29, 2019 12:52:39 GMT
stu Maybe you can post the name of the experiment with the doves ?
|
|
|
|
Post by stu on Oct 29, 2019 13:05:44 GMT
stu Maybe you can post the name of the experiment with the doves ? Can't recall the name of the experiment but really it wasn't anything to special. You can learn a lot about interminnent re inforcement and it's applications through Google though. It's based off operant conditioning and there are a lot of educational and scholoary videos and articles about that as well. Here is a link related to interminnent re inforcement as it applies to ABA therapies www.educateautism.com/applied-behaviour-analysis/schedules-of-reinforcement.html |
|
|
|
Post by happyidiot on Oct 29, 2019 15:01:27 GMT
I wouldn't take any of this as a personal criticism Happyidiot. As I understood it, the article referred to committed relationships that follow the pattern of a consistently loving honeymoon period, followed by distancing and intermittent reinforcement of what was once provided consistently. Casual usually starts out casual with no future faking or flip flopping , and doesn't create the same dynamic. Abuse is behaviour that causes psychological, physical, financial or spiritual harm, as I understand it. As adults we should know what that is , because kids can't explain it to parents. Its on us as adults to know the difference. I'm not taking it personally at all, I just came up with that example to illustrate what I meant, an example of something that would be intermittent reinforcement yet not abuse, not because it is something I actually do. Abuse is more than merely something that causes harm. Someone can feel harmed without being abused. Not meeting someone's emotional needs is not automatically abuse, in fact it's not actually your partner's job to meet all your needs and many cases of intermittent reinforcement in "relationships" are in uncommitted situations which the person doing the intermittent reinforcement views as "casual" so it's really not their job to be meeting all your needs. Replace "friend" in my example with someone I have sex with. What if I just only want to see them every once in a while and I'm not looking for something more serious, in fact that's partly why I don't accept their invitations more frequently, because I'm trying not to lead them on. Am I abusing them, or am I just maybe a bad communicator and treating them like an adult capable of making their own decisions, assuming they would stop seeing me if they were not ok with the way things are? I have certainly experienced the pain of a hot and cold love interest, and the addiction that comes with intermittent reinforcement, I'm just not certain I'd always categorize it as "abuse" per se. I see abuse as a strong word and I feel like the meaning is getting a bit diluted lately which I don't think actually empowers people, if they just view all their exes or love interests who never committed or behaved inconsistently as having abused them. I've been in an objectively very abusive relationship before myself, so I'm not trying to victim blame here, but I think there is a difference between someone being inconsiderate, or being a scared avoidant who doesn't know what they want and being abusive. Teal Swan says " No matter what, if you are in an intermittent reinforcement relationship, you are in an abusive relationship," which I think is a stretch. For example I dated a DA guy who gave me intermittent reinforcement, which was pretty addictive and he was actually a pretty sweet guy and certainly not abusive. He just didn't want the same things as me. I think serenity is saying your partner should need your most important needs, not all your needs. I think at the end of the day, we define what is abusive or not. There is no litmus test here. What I might shrug off “as a bit cold” can be interpreted as “woefully neglectful” by someone else. Similarly, what I think is “affectionate” might be considered as “smothering” by a different person. (As the others have pointed out, Teal Swan is a bit of a yahoo, her saying her opinion really mean just as much as what she says about remember your past life). The precise definition of the word "abuse," like all words, is subjective, and it's a particularly hard to define word. That does not make the action of abuse itself subjective, the person who feels they were abused does not in fact get to decide if it's abuse. Narcissistic abusers themselves often say they are the ones being abused. Does that make them abused? No. Is the definition of abuse "anything that I find hurtful"? No. Sure, someone else could argue about the definition of the word, and say "Well I DO think the word abuse means anything I find hurtful," but then I'm well within my rights to argue that is not what the word means. Words like "affectionate" and "smothering" are more emotional words, about how one perceives an action, whereas abuse is a word that refers to an action itself. |
|
|
|
Post by serenity on Oct 29, 2019 20:49:31 GMT
Abuse: ``treat with cruelty or violence, especially regularly or repeatedly.''
|
|
|
|
Post by stu on Oct 29, 2019 21:25:50 GMT
Abuse: ``treat with cruelty or violence, especially regularly or repeatedly.'' Alof of times victims of abuse go on to become abusers themselves and repeat the cycle. Often people with c ptsd and the like. This being because they are not even in a clear state of mind and stuck in a trauma loop. Of course they need full responsibility for their actions and consequences but something to keep in mind too. |
|
|
|
Post by dhali on Oct 29, 2019 21:49:49 GMT
Yeah, we have some posters here who don’t think abuse is actual abuse because of attachment style.
I’d like to extend that to narcissists. They are almost always unaware, so none of their bad behavior is on purpose. They also didn’t choose their path. Practice empathy.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 29, 2019 22:19:22 GMT
Isn't it real though that whatever happens, we all are responsible for boundaries to protect ourselves? Obviously I understand how trauma begets trauma but the end object is to be able to protect oneself as an adult. Like, boundaries are possible even for the formerly abused. I'm not victim blaming, I'm saying that as adults we have some control over how far we are victimized (especially by something like intermittent reinforcement. Even drug addicts can and do get clean. )
Everyone has to work toward mental health if they want to be mentally healthy. It's something that is an awakening over time for most of us. My guess is that Teal Swan didn't use magic to improve her situation. (Although maybe she did, she's kind of mYsTeRIOus ).She probably developed boundaries.
I think trauma is bad all the way around and really, no one saves us but we can get help if we are open minded and amenable to suggestions that others have experienced success with.
Things can be subjective- but I know for darn sure what my lines are, and how to defend them. That was hard earned really.
|
|
|
|
Post by dhali on Oct 29, 2019 22:49:04 GMT
We are indeed responsible for our own boundaries. And for what it’s worth, narcissism is a result of childhood trauma as well.
|
|
